He was anti abortion and anti gay......
And many criminals are pro-choice, or any of a million other things.
So you're saying that Rudolph was a run of the mill criminal who happened to have conservative leanings.
If you buy a third bridge, it will be freshly repainted when you come to pick it up.
What did the Olympic bombing have to do with these things?
He saw the Olympics as a gov't sponsored event at which he could make a strong statement.
for many conservatives, those two issues are at the heart of their ideology.
For some conservative pro-life views are the hart of the ideology. For some non-conservatives pro-life views are very important. Very few, conservative or otherwise have being against gays or homosexual activity as the heart of their ideology.
I don't buy any of the above.
Sanatorum is a senator from a northern, urban state with sizeable gay populations. He's got to believe that his constituency which has to be large will buy off on his condemnations of gays.
It is rare that an American president makes a pre-emptive strike against another nation. Do you have examples of ones that did?
1 - Iraq was a bit more then just a preemptive strike. Its basically been a low level war for 12 years.
Huh?
2 - For it to be clear that Bush had made a wholesale departure from the doctrines of his predecessors from both parties I would expect more then one example.
Afghanistan
3 - Grenada and Panama can be considered preemptive strikes. I'm sure there are others but those are two that I personally remember.
Those were not considered wars. If they were, then we have to include the Phillipines on Bush's list.
"You should drop the "pushing for military action" Democratic presidents have pushed for military action as often as Republicans."
Not nearly as often as Reps.
Look in to the history of armed conflicts that the US has been in since WWII. Look who was president during each of them, big or small. Now note that Republicans have been president for the majority of the years during this period but not the majority of time spent in armed conflict.
Yes, when we are attacked, Dem presidents respond. Even the Vietnam war was started under Eisenhower but accelerated under Kennedy.
So then, you're saying that there is considerable inconsistency in ideology within the GOP party. Is that a correct statement?
If two people disagree I wouldn't call that an inconsistency. I would say there is differences within the GOP. I would also say the some within the GOP (just like some of the Dems) fail to support or live up to their ideology.
If there are differences within the GOP wouldn't that result in inconsistencies with their idealogy?
The bible does not advocate war, not even as a last resort.
The bible does not say "thou shalt not stop a murderer", or "thou shall not liberate an oppressed people from a brutal tyrant.
Yes, and your point is?
Also the Dems have had a big part in our nations wars.
You have gone from pre-emptive war to war in general. That was not my original premise.
The bible does not advocate discrimination of any sort.
I think you should think carefully about what the words "discrimination of any sort" mean. A better word would be racial bigotry.
Please explain.
The Republicans don't advocate bigotry either.
Of course, not publicly. The Reps. are many things but no one ever called them stupid. Well, not until T. DeLay made the scene.
The bible doesn't encourage condemning people to eternal hell.
Neither does the Republican party.
Then why did conservatives condemn the Dixie Chicks to eternal hell?
Also from the perspective of even specifically the religious right (rather then the secular institution of the whole party) people have no power to condemn someone else to hell.
Well, Falwell sure does it often enough.
God is the only one who can make such judgments but really the biblical idea is that people can condemn themselves to hell through not following God. Normally I don't talk about hell. I'm not even sure it exists. I can certainly tell you I have never seen a statement from the Republican party that they where condemning someone to hell.
How about a statement from a conservative?
"It has long been a national party with a sophisticated agenda."
Sorry, the party barely was able to get 48% of the national vote in the 2000 presidential election after the Dems. had been shamed by Clinton committing adultery.
And perjury.
But the Dems where barely able to get 48% after a charismatic president and a long period of economic growth.
Touché!
The South has been Rep. since the 60s. Deal with it!
Many states in the south had Democratic majorities in their legislators and/or had democratic governors into the 80s or even 90s. Now such majorities are few and far between but in the 60s and 70s then where the norm.
I made my case.....accept it.
I don't like the parts of conservative idelogy that are less than humanistic.
Most of the parts of their ideology that you would call against humanism are either humanistic or neutral.
That makes absolutely no sense.
Also your response doesn't even try to answer the point. Because you don't like those ideas attacks against them don't really count as attacks, at least judging by what you post here. However even if the Republicans where actually demonic your point would have no validity. The truth is the Dems attack as frequently and brutally as the Republicans, probably more so. The substance of the actual policies and political ideas is a different issue then who attacks the other side more often and nastier. We can have a separate conversation about those policies (and to an extent we have been) but they are irrelevant to the initial question.
I am not going to bother further with this argument. I don't buy it but to show evidence of my position would take so much work, its not worth it.
ted |
